Mid-Term Review (MTR) for Project: Cabo Verde Appliances & Building Energy-Efficiency Project - CABEEP (PIMS 4996)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2018-2022, Cape Verde
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
02/2019
Completion Date:
02/2019
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
No
Evaluation Budget(US $):
25,062

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document ToR MTR Nat CV Appliances Build Energy-Effic Proj 2nd.pdf tor English 439.33 KB Posted 57
Download document Relatório MTR.pdf report English 1583.13 KB Posted 96
Download document UNDP-GEF MTR ToR International Consultant Cabo Verde Appliances Building Energy-Efficiency Project V1 (3).pdf tor English 467.39 KB Posted 58
Title Mid-Term Review (MTR) for Project: Cabo Verde Appliances & Building Energy-Efficiency Project - CABEEP (PIMS 4996)
Atlas Project Number: 00088659
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2022, Cape Verde
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 02/2019
Planned End Date: 02/2019
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Poverty
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 2.1.1 Low emission and climate resilient objectives addressed in national, sub-national and sectoral development plans and policies to promote economic diversification and green growth
SDG Goal
  • Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
SDG Target
  • 13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
Evaluation Budget(US $): 25,062
Source of Funding:
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 25,062
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Dinesh Aggarwal International Consultant dinesh.a@rediffmail.com INDIA
Margarida Santos Consultant maguy.santos12@gmail.com
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Removing barriers to energy efficiency in the Cabo Verdean built environment and for appliances
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: MSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 5344
PIMS Number: 4996
Key Stakeholders: Directorate General of Energy (DGE) under Ministry of Tourism, Industry and Energy
Countries: CAPE VERDE
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Recommendation 1:

In case of targets for direct GHG emission reduction due to implementation of EEBC, the level of ambition is on the higher side. The project design has considered that the EEBC will get developed and implemented within one year of the start of the project implementation. Further, it has been considered that it will be possible to construct the six demonstration (pilot) buildings within the implementation timelines of the project and these buildings would lead to direct GHG emission reductions. The expectations of reductions in the energy consumption (and the consequent GHG emission reductions) due to the establishment of the new energy efficiency buildings within the implementation timelines of the project is not realistic. This is considering the fact that establishment of new buildings requires a number of sequential time consuming activities. Some of the activities required for establishing new buildings are, identification of the buildings to be constructed, basic design of the buildings, detailed design of the building, approval of the building plans and design by the owner of the building and the relevant authorities, arrangement and mobilisation of the funds required, procurement of the material, actual construction of the building. Many of these activities cannot be carried out in parallel. After all the designs and approvals are in place the actual construction of the building would take anywhere from two to three year. Establishment of 6 building (4 public buildings and 2 social housing programmes) for pilot demonstration projects (as envisaged in the project design), within the project implementation timelines is too ambitious to be achieved. It is recommended that the target for direct reduction in the emission of GHG due to implementation of EEBC be set at zero.

2

Recommendation 2:

The project has envisaged construction of 6 new buildings (4 public buildings and 2 social housing programmes) which are in complain to the EEBC, for pilot demonstration projects. In line with the arguments presented in case of recommendation 1 above, it is recommended that the scope for pilot projects (Outcome 3 of the project) be restricted to the basic design of the buildings as per the newly approved EEBC.

3

Recommendation 3:

For the estimates in the energy savings in the buildings, historical consumption of energy in the buildings has been used as the baseline and the historical growth in the consumption of energy in the buildings has been used to determine the consumption of energy in the BSU. It is important to note that the intervention under the GEF project pertains to development and implementation of ‘Energy Efficiency Building Code (EEBC)’. As per the project design, the EEBC will be applicable to all the new buildings to be constructed in future. Theoretically, there are three contributing factors towards the growth in the historical consumption of energy in the buildings; increase in the ownership of appliances in the buildings; increase in the usage of existing stock of appliances in the buildings; increase in the building stock due to construction of new buildings. 

The EEBC code will only influence the variation in the energy consumption due to construction of new buildings. In the absence of historical (and baseline) data regarding the construction of new buildings and the specific energy consumption (in terms of MWh per year per building or per unit of floor area), it is not possible to determine the contribution of the construction of new buildings in the past growth in the consumption of energy, in the buildings. The project document has considered a growth of 3.6 percent per annum in the demand for energy in the buildings on the baseline figure of 124911 MWh per annum (for the base year 2012). It is considered that the contribution of the three factors mentioned above is equal, accordingly in the BSU scenario the incremental consumption of energy in the newly constructed buildings in Cabo Verde would be about 1500 MWh per annum. Thus, implementation of EEBC in Cabo Verde has the potential to lead to reduction in the consequential (indirect) GHG emission of 7200 tons of CO2 equivalent, over a period of 10 years, post implementation of the project. It is recommended that the project, correct the end of the project target for reduction of the consequential (indirect) GHG emissions to either 7200 tons of GHG emission or to a more accurate figure after carrying out a through assessment in this regard.

4

Recommendation 4:

The assumption in the project design, that the minimum performance standards and labelling program for the appliances will be achieved and become effective within one year of the project implementation timelines and this will lead to significant energy savings within the implementation timelines of the project is ambitious. This is considering the fact that development of regulations and its approval is a time consuming process. Further, the peak results (in terms of reduction in energy consumption in the appliances) of the energy performance standards can only be realised over the lifetime of the appliance (typically 4 to 5 years, except for the bulbs and lamps). Also the results of the awareness creation program regarding the benefits of use of energy efficient appliances can be realised only once such awareness creation activities has been carried out. It is recommended that the target for direct reduction in the emission of GHG due to implementation of minimum energy performance standards and labelling programs be set at zero.

5

Recommendation 5:

There are issues with the computation algorithms and assumptions made while computing the baseline energy consumption and the projected energy savings due to implementation of the energy performance standards and labelling program for the appliances. Some of such issues are as follows:

  • The life of the appliances has been considered as 5 years (replacement of 20% of the appliances every year as mentioned in Annex C of Project Document). Although, the life of 5 years may be acceptable for refrigerators, freezers, water heaters and televisions, the life of incandescent bulbs can’t be accepted as five years. In case of incandescent bulbs, the life is only about 6 to 9 months (about 1000 hrs. of operations).
  • In case of air-conditioners, average power consumption, in the baseline case has been considered as 3000 watts for every unit, which is very much on the higher side. Further, while computing the energy consumption, 3000 watts has been multiplied by the number of hours of operations. The air-conditioners are on the full load only when the compressor is working (approximately about 50% of the time).
  • In case of refrigerators as well, while computing the energy consumption, the estimated power consumption of 200 watts has been multiplied by the number of hours of operations (24 hours). Like air-conditioners, refrigerators are on the full load only when the compressor is working (approximately about 20% of the time).

In view of the above it is recommended that the targets for consecutive GHG emission (indirect GHG emission) reductions due to minimum energy performance standards and labelling program for appliances may be put at 110 thousand tons of CO2 over a period of 10 years (post implementation of the project) or the estimates of consecutive GHG emissions may be re-worked for more accurate assessment.

6

Recommendation 6:

Apart from the values of direct and consequent GHG emission reduction targets, there are issues with some of the indicators provided to monitor the progress and achievement of the project objectives, Outcomes and the results. It is recommended that the log-frame of the project be modified to take care of the issues. Suggested changes in the log-frame are marked in Table 2.

7

Recommendation 7:

Many of the activities for all the Outcomes of the project are yet to be carried out. This is largely due to delayed start of the project. One of the reason for this is the procedural delays in the appointment of the consulting firm, to carry out different activities. The felt out activities, to facilitate the achievement of results can only be completed, if an extension is provided for the implementation timelines for the project. It is recommended that an extension of one year be provided for implementation of the project.

8

Recommendation 8:

As is evident there is not much achievement of results for Outcome 3 (in-spite of the progress towards achievement of results in term of the indicators). In order the take care of this situation it is recommended to provide for an additional Output and the indicator (please see Table 2). It would be possible to achieve these only in case an extension of one year is granted for implementation of the project.

9

Recommendation 9:

Given the climatic conditions in most of the islands of Cabo Verde, there is hardly any requirement for heating the space in the buildings. Also, the air-conditioning requirements are moderate. Thus, the highest gain in the EE in the buildings at an aggregate level could be achieved by the EE building design (orientation, natural lighting, material specifications etc.). Further, the EE gains due to use of appliances (lamps and air conditioners) with higher efficiency in the buildings, is already covered under the component of the project pertaining to S&L program, thereby leading to double counting of the benefits of EE measures under the project. However, the present version of the EEBC is applicable to new commercial buildings only. It is recommended that, in order to enhance the benefits of EEBC, the option of making it applicable for the residential buildings may be explored.

10

Recommendation 10:

In the present working and management arrangements, most of the work is being carried out by the two consulting firms. Neither PMU nor DEG has the required technical capacity, to guide and evaluate the work carried out by the consulting firms. Further, UNDP CO also lacks the technical skills required to supervise and evaluate the work carried out by the consulting firms. It is recommended to have an international technical advisor to support implementation of the project. The technical advisor will also support the M&V activities to the required level.

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org